The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a married gym trainer accused of raping a woman advocate, while observing that questions of morality must be kept separate from offence when courts decide matters on personal liberty, as per a report by Bar and Bench.
Justice Girish Kathpalia made the remarks while hearing a bail plea filed by the accused in a case registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including rape, blackmail and extortion.
How did the case unfold and what were the allegations
According to the prosecution, the complainant, who is an advocate, met the accused at a gym in Delhi where the two developed a friendship. The woman alleged that the accused added an intoxicating substance to her drink, after which she lost consciousness and was taken to an OYO hotel in Ghaziabad where she was raped and photographed without her consent, as Bar and Bench reported.
She further alleged that the accused used the photographs to blackmail her into repeated sexual relations and extorted Rs 65,000 by threatening to circulate the images and videos on social media.
The accused denied the allegations and argued before the court that the relationship was entirely consensual. His counsel submitted photographs and videos purportedly showing the two in a romantic relationship, claiming that the FIR was lodged only after their relationship deteriorated. Notably, the court also recorded that the prosecution raised the difference of religion between the parties as an argument against bail — an argument the court summarily rejected.
What were the grounds for bail
The court noted that the relationship between the accused and the complainant, as depicted in the images and videos presented before the court, appeared to be consensual, adding further that at the stage of bail, the focus must remain on legal principles and available evidence rather than societal perceptions of morality.
"As regards argument of learned APP [Additional Public Prosecutor] that the accused/applicant being married man with a child entering into extra marital love affair does not deserve bail, suffice it to record that morality has to be kept separate from the offence, that too while dealing with the matter of liberty of an individual. As regards the argument of prosecution regarding difference of religion, the same has been recorded to be simply rejected," the court observed, as reported by Bar and Bench.
While granting bail, Justice Kathpalia noted that the complainant was an adult and a practicing advocate, and that the investigation had not recovered any objectionable photographs or videos from the accused's phone. The court found that the material on record prima facie supported the accused's claim that the relationship was consensual.
